Serious disobedience offense

The Supreme Court (SC) has studied the case of a person convicted of violating a court order that required them to respect the visitation schedule with their children's grandparents . After the court, through a formal warning, asked them to comply with the schedule, they did not take the children to the designated meeting point , citing medical reasons. This lack of cooperation was not justified, according to the facts proven in previous judgments.

The convicted person appealed to the SC arguing that they only missed once and that repeated offenses would be necessary to speak of a disobedience offense. Furthermore, they argued that there was an error in assessing the evidence and that their presumption of innocence was not respected. However, the SC clarifies that to commit a serious disobedience offense it is not necessary to violate many times; it is enough to disobey a very clear and specific order from the judicial authority, especially if warned of the legal consequences of non-compliance.

In this case, the convicted person had everything perfectly notified , knew what to do and what could happen if not complied with. Nevertheless, she decided not to take the children , without any sufficiently justified reason. For the Supreme Court, this behavior demonstrates a clear intention to disobey. Additionally, they remind that these orders protect not only the grandparents, but above all the interest of the minors , and that the criminal route is valid when the non-compliance is serious enough, regardless of the possibility of also resorting to the civil route.

In the face of the other parent's non-compliance with the communication obligations and visitation schedule that correspond to them, our professionals will assess the most appropriate ways to defend their interests and those of their children